thanks for the work and the good answers so there will be swap of CC 1 to CC 2, and after we stop maintaining/mining/trading the CC 1 network ?is there stats how many CC 1 coins already distributed with mining+folding+staking ?

finally fixed (again) one of the GPU so my ppd improved a little

Yup, there will be a full swap from CC 1 to CC 2. Given the nature of the new blockchain, it probably won't be automated (1.0 addresses don't make any sense in the context of 2.0) so there will be a semi-automated manual process for the conversion. 1.0 and 2.0 will run alongside each other for a while to facilitate this.

How many cc 1.0 coins have been distributed from mining + folding is easy to estimate. CureCoin has been out for about 585 days, which means 585 days of mining + folding. This should even out to around 9360 coins per day (7488 for folding, 1872 for mining), which equals 5,475,600 coins. Currently, about 23,499,116 coins "exist" on the network (most are not in circulation), the vast majority of which are tied up in the premine addresses used to pay out folders their 7488 coins per day, meaning that, staking factors not considered for premine addresses, there should be about 16,180,000 (which is 21,655,600 - 5,475,600) premine coins that aren't in circulation.

So, if the network reports 22,499,116 coins existing, and we should have about 16,180,000 coins still sitting in the premine holding addresses, then the 1.0 network should have about 6,319,116 total coins in circulation. As a result, it would appear that approximately 5,475,600 coins are from folding+mining, and 843,516 coins have been created from PoS.

This doesn't include dev payouts. I'm not sure of the actual monthly payout, but it shouldn't change the reserved premine numbers by more than a few percent.

And a quick reminder for anyone who doesn't feel like trudging through the last 20+ pages of forum posts: CC 2.0 will eliminate premines, except for the premine created to convert 1.0 coins to 2.0. We won't be paying out from a premine (or at all, the coins will be generated by coinbase on the network for folding, so we don't have to touch them), and the dev funds will also be created as coinbase in some fashion. So on 2.0, whatever number the network reports as the current coin supply will be the total coins in circulation.

Additionally (not sure if I've mentioned this before on the forums), 2.0 will have official burn addresses. While it may seem a bit silly, it'll allow any premined coins that weren't claimed during the conversion process to be officially destroyed, so they won't be counted as part of the coinbase, and everyone can be entirely sure that the coins are, indeed, gone--the burn addresses will be provably invalid, because the network won't allow outgoing transactions from them. Burn addresses have always been something that were obviously impossible addresses (such as an address made entirely, except for the checksum, of the same digit), but mathematically possible. While that was sufficient for everyone to agree that the coins WERE actually gone, network-enforced burn addresses are a cleaner, more elegant solution.

So in summary, there are somewhere around (including a high rough estimate for dev funds) 6,508,689 CureCoins that are currently in circulation and would be eligible for 2.0 conversion if it were to happen right now (realistically, it'll probably be within 1/2 a year or so, but the fact that 1.0 and 2.0 run side-by-side will slightly complicate this). If people are really interested in an exact number, I could have Josh give us a precise total on the current premine holdings .

Oh, and a team member Ivan has been working on putting together a calculator for people to estimate hardware costs and whatnot.

Here's how it looks: http://1.curecoinmirror.com/calculatordemo.html If anyone has anything they'd like added to the calculator, let me know! One feature I have considered is a drop-down to pick the video cards being used, but that seems to messy, given the wild differences different hardware configurations, drivers, etc. can produce (My overclocked 980 Ti gets about 550,000 PPD if running 24/7, although I can find sources on the internet that talk about it running as high as 800,000, and that's a huge margin for a calculator to assume).

We're just starting to test it, so let us know if you find any bugs or abnormalities. It isn't feature-complete yet.

In the last few days, Google reported that its D-Wave X2 outperforms single-core classical computers by a factor of more than 108 for some traditional optimization problems.

Researchers believe that cracking ECDSA is possible with a modified version of Shor's algorithm. Bitcoin uses 256-bit ECDSA (Secp256k1) for signing transactions, which researchers estimate to require somewhere around 2000 qubits to successfully attack. Google's D-Wave X2 has around 1000 qubits. It's also extremely important to note that this isn't a general-purpose quantum computing, but rather built specifically for quantum annealing, so it isn't capable of implementing Shor's algorithm (or Grover's, for people concerned about mining). Also important to note is that far more qubits may be required for error checking, where tens of physical qubits might be required for each logical qubit.

Of course there's no proof yet that a quantum computer can attack these problems in real life at such a scale, although rudimentary quantum computers have successfully run Shor's algorithm to factor small numbers (which applies directly to RSA, which uses the difficulty of factorization to derive security from).

At any rate, it's great to investigate solutions (like Merkle Trees) that we believe to be impossible for quantum computers to compromise given the pace of development in that field.

So hows this little sham going? Have we actually folded proteins or just pretending to? Or are we still spending everything on cases of wind and brain control research?

Drug development is a fairly slow process, so there's certainly nothing on the market you can buy today that was the direct result of Folding@Home research.

A few years ago, F@H found several drug candidates which appear promising for Alzheimers, and in 2010 tests were performed on tissue samples. 2011 saw Folding@Home simulate several mutations of the amyloid beta peptide, and is now researching interactions between enzymes and misfolding of Aβ. http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/jm201332p

A tumor suppressor, p53, responsible for about half of all researched types of cancer, has been researched extensively in the past decade by F@H. Mutations/misfolds of p53 cause the "cancer kill switch" of cells to malfunction, allowing abnormal cells to develop and reproduce. A promising protein which marks cancer cells for the immune system to attack, Interleukin 2, has been researched by the Folding@Home project recently. Big pharma have previously expressed interest in the compound, but the side effects have been too extreme. Recent findings from Folding@Home of an alternate form of Interleukin 2 which is orders of magnitude more effective and with fewer side effects, has sparked laboratory research from the NIH, who are currently testing it in a variety of tumors, with an end goal of a deliverable medicine. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22446627

They've also made significant contributions to the field by designing, testing, and refining computational approaches to a variety of problems including potential mechanisms for disabling RNase H (an enzyme responsible for helping HIV transcribe genetic information) and designing drugs which modify or disable only targeted cells, enzymes, proteins, etc. https://folding.stanford.edu/home/faq/faq-diseases/

Oh, and a team member Ivan has been working on putting together a calculator for people to estimate hardware costs and whatnot.

Here's how it looks: http://1.curecoinmirror.com/calculatordemo.html If anyone has anything they'd like added to the calculator, let me know! One feature I have considered is a drop-down to pick the video cards being used, but that seems to messy, given the wild differences different hardware configurations, drivers, etc. can produce (My overclocked 980 Ti gets about 550,000 PPD if running 24/7, although I can find sources on the internet that talk about it running as high as 800,000, and that's a huge margin for a calculator to assume).

We're just starting to test it, so let us know if you find any bugs or abnormalities. It isn't feature-complete yet.

Looking at the results i got from running the calculator is a scary thing with the current price it may take many years to roi on my 2 gtx if ever.

Looks like in November CURE's value has quickly doubled before getting back to a lower value. Does anybody know what created that spike?

Moreover, and that's maybe a naïve question, what are the main factors that could durably increase the value of the CureCoin?Having more people in the CC folding team?Having people not converting their CC to BTC as soon as they earned them?

What can we, CC Team's folders, do to help CURE's value to increase in the medium to long term?

Looks like in November CURE's value has quickly doubled before getting back to a lower value. Does anybody know what created that spike?

Moreover, and that's maybe a naïve question, what are the main factors that could durably increase the value of the CureCoin?Having more people in the CC folding team?Having people not converting their CC to BTC as soon as they earned them?

What can we, CC Team's folders, do to help CURE's value to increase in the medium to long term?

In November the dev launch the first testnet of cc 2.0

We need more folders and more buy support on the order books at Polo and Bittrex... but more importantly we need curecoin 2.0 to come out... its been over a year that cc 2.0 should have been released but the dev failed to deliver in time so people are tired of waiting...

I still believe in Curecoin but dev need to get their SH*** together

lets hope 2016 will be a good year... this coin could really make a difference in the Altcoin space

Looks like in November CURE's value has quickly doubled before getting back to a lower value. Does anybody know what created that spike?

Moreover, and that's maybe a naïve question, what are the main factors that could durably increase the value of the CureCoin?Having more people in the CC folding team?Having people not converting their CC to BTC as soon as they earned them?

What can we, CC Team's folders, do to help CURE's value to increase in the medium to long term?

In November the dev launch the first testnet of cc 2.0

We need more folders and more buy support on the order books at Polo and Bittrex... but more importantly we need curecoin 2.0 to come out... its been over a year that cc 2.0 should have been released but the dev failed to deliver in time so people are tired of waiting...

I still believe in Curecoin but dev need to get their SH*** together

lets hope 2016 will be a good year... this coin could really make a difference in the Altcoin space

If only it were as simple as copy pasting code to launch cc2.0, un/fortunately the vast majority of this needs to be coded from scratch so you can expect perhaps even extended delays as the concepts are coded and the kinks are ironed out. Also lets not forget crypto devs are more often than not, not paid for their work and must balance work/family life around the time they can spend developing such projects. Perhaps a more constructive way to approach the issue of delays is not to bag on devs but to offer help if you are able otherwise continue to contribute to the community so that we may get others who are able to help interested in the project.

Looks like in November CURE's value has quickly doubled before getting back to a lower value. Does anybody know what created that spike?

Moreover, and that's maybe a naïve question, what are the main factors that could durably increase the value of the CureCoin?Having more people in the CC folding team?Having people not converting their CC to BTC as soon as they earned them?

What can we, CC Team's folders, do to help CURE's value to increase in the medium to long term?

More people folding will help with distribution but that alone can't help the price. If you look at the markets it would seem majority of coins from folding are held rather than sold immediately for btc. The best way we can help to increase the value is by creating demand (buy pressure) this can partially be achieved by the creation of services to give people a reason to buy curecoin, again that will have limited effect as it is usually very niche services. Something that has been discussed in the past is the possibility of DCN's (decentralized computing networks) providing buy pressure to encourage more users to contribute computing time. CC2.0 is certainly a step in the direction of making this idea more plausible though in reality it seems unlikely that stanford would pay anything for something they already get for free. I personally am in favor of the idea that DCN's pay some small amount in the form of buy pressure for curecoin in order to encourage miners away from wasteful pow and towards their own DCN, if the DCN could get the same results as they would hiring or running expensive supercomputers for less money by supporting curecoin it seems like a win-win to me.

I'm sure that if we could get speculators to launch the rocket to 1usd per coin people would be folding like crazy

Until then It will be hard to have more folders

lets hope CC 2.0 will move people away from POW

if it will reach too quick to something big like 1$ won't it will cause Stanford getting flooded too much by new folders ? rise should be slow, and folding more and more profitable every daycan their infrastructure support a sudden big jump in folding power ?

the good thing with this kind of POW, is that we actually want difficulty to go up (or your daily share to go down)

Programming projects always seem to take orders of magnitude longer than it seems they should... but here's my optimistic timeline:2.0.0a5 (PoS testnet update) will hopefully be in private team testing today, and public testnet release tomorrow, on Github and with compiled binaries here.2.0.0a7 (Code cleanup) will hopefully see public release December 17th. No new (major) features, but the code will be far easier to read and work with. Bug fixes, etc.2.0.0a9 (Variable difficulty, network timing, more advanced peer seeking mechanisms) will hopefully be public by Jan 3rd.

Hey everyone, 2.0's still chugging along, a tad behind schedule. I'm rolling the plans for the next two public betas (2.0.0a7 and 2.0.0a9) together, because when significantly overhauling the code, I realized it didn't make sense to re-write and optimize things that are going to be removed (such as the static difficulty calculations, some PoW/PoS code chunks, the dead weight of a lot of the block parsing code introduced from bolting PoS onto 2.0.0a3, etc.) so 2.0.0a7 is going to be cleanup + variable difficulty/block timing/peer seeking.

Life is extremely busy, but I'm hoping to have something in public hands in the next few weeks.